Indeed, the articles states that "The FBI is focusing on a contractor that worked with the CIA".

The contractor could very well have been Battelle Memorial Institute, a long-time CIA contractor which had carried out anthrax experiments for decades. As the BBC noted:

"CIA is in this [anthrax] business too, though presumably only through contractors. But we don't know how many contractors. One contractor is now publicly disclosed, Battelle, that did one of those projects."

And as a September 4, 2001 New York Times article notes, the government had hired Battelle to engineer a new, more potent form of anthrax.

So the CIA contractor under FBI suspicion could have been Battelle. But as the BBC article notes, "We don't know how many contractors [were working on anthrax projects for the CIA], we don't know how many projects."

Is it more likely that vaccine scientist Ivins did it? Or that the dirty tricks boys at the CIA or one of its contractors - with experiencing in weaponizing anthrax - did?

As noted by the Washington Post in December 2001, "CIA officials have said they are certain the anthrax used in the mailings did not come from their work, that none of it is missing and that the small amount in their possession was not milled into powder form."

That's good enough, right? If the CIA boys said they didn't do it, then we should believe them, right?

Interestingly, the CIA did not even address whether one of their anthrax contractors did it.

Please Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to workPlease Enable Javascript for this Oil Price widget to work